Jump to content

AFM/DFM Class action suit...finally

putz173
 Share

Recommended Posts

shakenfake Senior Enthusiast

shakenfake

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, voided3 said:

Makes sense, losing oil pressure never is a good thing and I can't stand auto start/stop. I've always manually disabled auto start/stop on our truck from day one and the lifters still prematurely failed at 585 miles (though primarily due to manufacturing defect). Prior to 2019, the 5.3 and 6.2 didn't have auto start/stop, either, and that generation also runs into lifter failures after a few years of normal use.

 

We also have a Mini Countryman with auto start/stop and mercifully on that car when you turn it off, it stays off for good for every subsequent ignition cycle. It has a little 1.5 liter 3-cylinder turbo and I can only imagine what favors losing oil pressure at every red light does for the turbo, hence why I disable it on that car, too.

You are over worrying. 100k+ miles on an Audi A6 2.0L turbo diesel. Auto stop and start rarely gets turned off. I even had it tuned. Breathe.

  • Like 1
haider320 Enthusiast

haider320

Posted
Posted
On 1/5/2022 at 3:22 PM, Silverado4x4 said:

I was reading online today that this guy was a GM mechanic an GM is now saying the lifter failure may be the cause of the auto/start stop system that when the motor stops oil is going back into the crank and on restart the oil has to pumped back up again for lubrication. Don't ask where I found it because I know ill never be able to find the page again, kind of make some since. Without the chip it also disables DFM along with start/stop. :dunno:

I don't have DFM but still have start/stop.

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted
On 1/5/2022 at 3:21 PM, WeGone said:

What does DFM have to do with emissions? It is for fuel mileage improvements.

 

If this statement were true they would not be able to sell new trucks without the chip to run it as it is disabled and from my understanding will never be re-enabled on these trucks.

Less fuel used = less emissions generated.  The reason they will not-re-enable is likely the cost to do so.

YZ-Dave Enthusiast

YZ-Dave

Posted
Posted

Well even if a CALS goes forward and gets rewarded, you might see what, $100 - and you will still have a set of the same questionable lifters in your engine. If they did have to pay out, once they do, they are 100% off the hook.

The reality is that what, 98% or more of these engines are going down the road just fine with no problem at all, and will hit 200k miles. The thing has a higher probability of being backed over at your local home improvement store by a dump truck and being totaled.

GM has been dealing with the issue on these lifters for a LONG time, going back to the LS engine. The problem lies in inconsistent material problems in the metal itself and is highly inconsistent, and is impossible to know which and what lifters will fail. 

Should they update it - yes. But if they do that now, GM will be replacing millions of lifters in engines that won't need it. It is literally a better logistic solution for them to let them fail in the field.

See the way this whole thing works with the CALS is GM will lay in the weeds, let them form their case, and will have the data to justify their decisions. There was a lawsuit being filed for Camaro, CTS, Corvette owners over starter motors going bad. Once things came out that nearly half the people on the lawsuit had modified their cars in some way, the whole thing got thrown out in court. Change the topic to the lifters - and GM can start asking for proof that all these engines had been run / serviced on time, with Dexos approved fluids, etc..... the same thing will happen. The CALS is only a good idea for the lawyers as they are the only ones who are guaranteed anything if there is a payout.



 

voided3 Enthusiast

voided3

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, YZ-Dave said:

Should they update it - yes. But if they do that now, GM will be replacing millions of lifters in engines that won't need it. It is literally a better logistic solution for them to let them fail in the field.

 

I agree, and this is the most likely outcome. I think the best outcome would be to give all customers extended coverage on the affected engines so at least if they break down, they know it won't be out of pocket. When they fail, they should have an upgraded full set of lifters installed under that coverage (as opposed to using the exact same design, or at least use the same part but built with more robust materials and tighter tolerances). 

WeGone Enthusiast

WeGone

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/5/2022 at 3:21 PM, WeGone said:

"Completely agree, but they'll probably never deactivate DFM on existing vehicles as that's tampering with emissions control systems."

 

 

5 hours ago, elcamino said:

Less fuel used = less emissions generated.  The reason they will not-re-enable is likely the cost to do so.

 I agree but my comment was in regards to the statement at the top about removing or tampering with DFM ! 

I have never seen anything relating to or stating disabling/deactivating DFM was tampering with emissions, if it was the sellers of said disabling devices would have to disclose this to the buyer.

Edited by WeGone
diyer2 Senior Enthusiast

diyer2

Posted
Posted

I think whatever happens will be in GM's favor, meaning the least cost. There are other mass produced products with design flaws that get a band-aide applied and I wouldn't count on it being favorable to the consumer. I say again, do you remember the Ford Pinto gas tank flaw. They killed people IMO and got away with minimal cost. 

shanemoon Enthusiast

shanemoon

Posted
Posted

All of this is overblown. Remember, anyone can sue anyone in the US for anything...and claim anything in their lawsuit. I can sue GM for my car turning into a rainbow elephant at night and haunting me in my sleep, and if I get enough people to agree with me, I can even make it a class action lawsuit. Doesn't mean it'll ever get anywhere. 9 out of 10 class action lawsuits end up vanishing.

 

Also remember that GM has sold somewhere in the realm of 2.8 million of these trucks, with probably at least half being 5.3 V8 w/DFM. Based on numbers on this forum and just extrapolating that, I'd wager that there's maybe 1000-3000 engines that have this issues? That's somewhere in the realm of 0.1% - 0.3% of total vehicles sold with this engine....

 

EVERY manufacturer has issues during manufacturing. Bad batch of parts from a supplier, issue with a line process, assembly error, etc.

If you have the issue, you just happened to get unlucky. Get the warranty service and go about your life.

 

It's hilarious when people say stuff like "Oh I'll never own a GM again or GM is so trash, blah blah blah blah" based on such tiny numbers. Have fun with Ford and Ram's plethora of their own issues.

  • Like 5
  • 2 years later...
Bikerjon Enthusiast

Bikerjon

Posted
Posted
On 11/13/2024 at 8:13 PM, John Burkeen said:

2019 Sivarado got 130,000 and the pushrods bent in cylinder five had a life time driventrain but is you event miss a cabin air filter change it was voided. so im SOL!!

Never heard of a life time drivetrain. What is that?

lennybg Enthusiast

lennybg

Posted
Posted
On 11/14/2024 at 8:18 PM, Bikerjon said:

Never heard of a life time drivetrain. What is that?

Dodge had them at one time... Bought a brand new 2008 Jeep Wrangler Sahara with he lifetime powertrain warranty. But no one reads the fine print.. You had to have the oil changed on time every time, even going over 20 miles would void the warranty. You had to have the dealer perform ALL recommended Mileage services, Miss one and the warranty is voided,etc... It was nothing more than a gimmick.

  • Thanks 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,760
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    MASONV88888888
    Newest Member
    MASONV88888888
    Joined

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,364 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • MASONV88888888
      Another 6.2L engine failure!

      By MASONV88888888 · Posted

      My 2025 Silverado 1500 had to receive a brand-new engine (long block) under warranty last month at only around 16,500 miles. Before the replacement, the truck repeatedly displayed "Engine Oil Level Low" warnings, even though the Oil Life Monitor still showed around 50% remaining after about 6,000 miles since my last oil change. After seeing the warning several times, I checked the dipstick with the engine cold, and the oil level was completely normal. The next day, the message escalated to "Add Engine Oil." At first, I assumed it was just a faulty oil level sensor, so I brought the truck to the dealership. After inspecting the engine, they found internal cylinder wall scoring and ultimately replaced the entire long block under warranty. Before this happened, I was planning to install a 4-inch lift and suspension upgrade on my truck. After needing a new engine at just 16,500 miles, I honestly don't see the point anymore. I also contacted GM to ask whether my vehicle qualified for a buyback, but I was informed that it does not at this time. Anyway, this experience has left me with serious concerns about the long-term reliability of this engine. I sincerely hope NHTSA expands the current investigation or recall to include 2025 model and performs a thorough inspection of affected vehicles. My biggest concern is that these engines may fail shortly after the powertrain warranty expires. If GM truly stands behind this engine, then at the very least, please consider extending the powertrain warranty to 10 years for affected owners. That would go a long way toward restoring customer confidence.
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".    The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".    It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".     The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:    Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:      What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken. 
    • MASONV88888888
      Rattle in the rear!

      By MASONV88888888 · Posted

      Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. Years later, your thread is still helping Silverado owners.   I bought my 2025 Silverado 1500 in January 2025, and I've had what feels like the exact same rattle since day one. After reading your findings, I believe my truck has the same issue with the cable carrier contacting the rear sliding window. To be honest, I had pretty much given up on pursuing the issue. It wasn't until I recently drove another brand's pickup that I realized just how quiet their cabin was—and how noisy mine has been all along. On my truck, the rattle happens on almost any paved road, gets even worse on rougher pavement, and I can even hear it during braking and acceleration.   I actually referenced your thread when submitting my case to GM, hoping they'll recognize this as a recurring issue instead of treating it as an isolated incident. The reason I reached out to GM first is because my dealership told me they would need to keep the truck for at least two days just to diagnose the problem. I was concerned that even after two days, they still might not be able to identify the source of the rattle before giving the truck back to me. I had also asked a few dealerships about this issue during previous service visits, but none of them seemed to know what was causing it or had a solution. That's why I decided to contact GM directly first, hoping they might already have an official repair procedure or guidance for this issue.   I also hope GM eventually comes up with an official fix for this problem. I have a feeling there are many Silverado owners experiencing the same rattle, but most either choose to live with it or simply don't know what the cause is.   Really appreciate you taking the time to document your diagnosis. Your post is still making a difference years later.
    • Buckwild27
      Gas Prices

      By Buckwild27 · Posted

      I have 2 choices. 
    • Grumpy Bear
      Gas Prices

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Do you have access to BP fuels? Some stations have Silver 91 E-0 priced the same as their 93 E-10.  There is a local Marathon with 90 alky free for $6 a gallon but I go down the road to BP for $5-ish. They also have a 100 E-0 but that stuff is $10 a pop. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...